AIRPORT CENTRE, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
JORGE UGARTE, GLORIA QUINONES, AND RAUL A. CAMPOS, ET AL., APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 2012-07-11
No. 3D11-2997
Before WELLS, C.J., and LAGOA, J., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.
91 So. 3d 936 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2012)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

Airport Centre appealed an order setting aside a default final judgment against the appellees. The court reversed the trial court's decision, finding that the appellees failed to satisfy the three legal prerequisites required under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) for relief from a default judgment.


Holding

The appellate court reversed the trial court's order granting relief from the default final judgment because the appellees failed to satisfy all three legal prerequisites: excusable neglect for failure to file a responsive pleading, a meritorious defense, and due diligence in seeking relief from the default.


Headnotes

[1] To set aside a default final judgment, the moving party must demonstrate excusable neglect for failing to file a responsive pleading, a meritorious defense, and due dilig…

[2] A meritorious defense must be asserted by pleading or affidavit; a general denial is insufficient.

Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“For a trial court to grant a motion to set aside a default final judgment, the moving party must show three things: (1) the failure to file a responsive pleading was the result of excusable neglect; (2) the moving party has a meritorious defense; and (3) the moving party acted with due diligence in seeking relief from the default.”

Establishes the three-part test required for relief from a default judgment under Rule 1.540(b)

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

A default final judgment was entered against appellees. The appellees subsequently moved to set aside the default judgment under Florida Rule of Civil…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

The record demonstrates that none — let alone, as required, all — of the legal prerequisites for the order now under review granting Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) relief from a default final judgment duly entered against appellees has been satisfied. See Lazcar Int'l Inc. v. Caraballo, 957 So.2d 1191, 1192 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“For a trial court to grant a motion to set aside a default final judgment, the moving party must show three things: (1) the failure to file a responsive pleading was the result of excusable neglect; (2) the moving party has a meritorious defense; and (3) the moving party acted with due diligence in seeking relief from the default.”), review denied, 969 So.2d 1011 (Fla.2007); Geer v. Jacobsen, 880 So.2d 717, 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (A meritorious defense “must be asserted either by a pleading or in an affidavit, and a general denial is insufficient to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense.”); Allstate Floridian Ins. Co. v. Ronco Inventions, LLC, 890 So.2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (finding that a seven-week delay in seeking relief from default judgment was unreasonable); Herrick v. Se. Bank, 512 So.2d 1029 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (holding that excusable neglect cannot arise from negligence of counsel); see also Fischer v. Barnett Bank of S. Fla., 511 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (finding that a five week delay in seeking relief from default judgment was “entirely inexcusable”). The order is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to rein*937state the final judgment below. See Lazcar Int’l, Inc., 957 So.2d at 1192 (reversing an order vacating a final default judgment where there was an undisputed six week delay in moving for relief after learning of the default judgment); Church of Christ Written in Heaven, Inc. v. Church of Christ Written Heaven of Miami, Inc., 947 So.2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (reversing the trial court’s order vacating default judgment where unverified motion to vacate contained only bare allegations of excusable neglect and meritorious defense); Trinka v. Struna, 913 So.2d 626, 628 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (reversing the trial court’s order vacating default judgment where “defendant’s attorney ignored his duty to act with all due diligence” in allowing the passage of more than a month “between the discovery of the default and the entry of final judgment without any attempt to vacate the default”).

Reversed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw